Working from Home: Lessons from the Christchurch … · Public Service Association, Te Pūkenga...

Working from Home: Lessons from the Christchurch Experience

Working from Home: Lessons from Christchurch

This research report was prepared for Inland Revenue Te Tari Taake, in association with the

Public Service Association, Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi.

This research report was prepared by:

Dr Noelle Donnelly & Dr Sarah Proctor-Thomson

Industrial Relations Centre,

Victoria Business School,

Victoria University of Wellington

May 2013.

ISBN: 978-0-908651-08-5

Acknowledgments

This research was commissioned and funded as a joint initiative between the Inland Revenue

(IR) and the Public Services Association (PSA). Our thanks to the IR team of Tony McKone,

Kaye Taiaroa, Jade Temara, Irene Schriiffer and Judith Elston and to the PSA team of Jim Jones,

Kirsten Windelov, Stephen Ruth, MJ Hue and Euan Fraser. We would like to thank Stephen

Blumenfeld and Sue Ryall from the Industrial Relations Centre for their support. Our thanks

also to Pollyane Da Costa Diniz and Frank O’Connor for their assistance on this project. Finally,

we would like to express our deep gratitude to all who shared their experiences and

generously participated in this research.

The cover image is attributed to Marty Melville/AFP. Copyright permission pending.

This research has been granted ethical approval from the Victoria University of Wellington

Faculty of Commerce Human Ethics Committee.

Working from Home: Lessons from Christchurch

Foreword

We are delighted to introduce this independent and challenging report on the organisational

and employee experiences of working arrangements in the aftermath of the Christchurch

earthquakes.

When IRD and the PSA first discussed jointly funding and commissioning this research from

Victoria Business School’s Industrial Relations Centre, the experience of the earthquakes was

still raw for many. As time passes, and the practical implications for individuals, organisations

and communities are worked through, it is important that the lessons we take from the

earthquakes, for both business continuity in a crisis and business as usual, are informed by

robust research and reflection.

We know there is considerable national and international interest in the Christchurch

experience, and IRD and the PSA have welcomed the opportunity to collaborate on this

project with Victoria University and contribute to the body of knowledge of Christchurch

people’s working lives post-earthquakes.

Jeanie Truell

Chief People Officer, Inland Revenue.

Brenda Pilott

PSA National Secretary,

Public Service Association.

Contents

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 3

Research Context ............................................................................................................... 3

Research Background ........................................................................................................ 4

Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................... 7

Methods and Data Collection ........................................................................................... 10

Phase one: Employee Workshops ............................................................................ 10

Phase two: Online Survey ........................................................................................ 10

Phase three: Focus Groups ...................................................................................... 11

Section 1: Profile of Participants ..................................................................................... 12

Demographic Profile .............................................................................................. 12

Gender .................................................................................................................... 12

Age ......................................................................................................................... 12

Ethnicity.................................................................................................................. 13

Education ............................................................................................................... 14

Level of unionization ............................................................................................... 15

Working Profile ....................................................................................................... 15

Business unit ........................................................................................................... 15

Employment status ................................................................................................. 15

Work hours ............................................................................................................. 15

Length of service ..................................................................................................... 16

Section 2: ‘Getting Back to Work’..................................................................................... 17

Changing living circumstances ................................................................................ 17

Return to work ........................................................................................................ 19

Section 3: Working from Home in a Post-disaster Environment ....................................... 21

Work patterns......................................................................................................... 21

Caring responsibilities ............................................................................................. 23

Place of work .......................................................................................................... 25

Nature of ‘home’ work ............................................................................................ 26

Job demands ........................................................................................................... 29

Job control .............................................................................................................. 30

Section 4: Managing Home Workers ................................................................................ 31

Organisational Communication Channels ............................................................... 32

Section 5: Staff Experiences of Working from Home ........................................................ 34

The benefits of WFH in a post-disaster environment ............................................... 34

The challenges of WFH............................................................................................ 36

Staff transitions between worksites ........................................................................ 38

Section 6: Looking forward .............................................................................................. 40

Future demand for flexible work arrangements (FWAs) .......................................... 40

Areas for improvement ........................................................................................... 43

Section 7: Organisational Learnings ................................................................................. 44

References ....................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix B…………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………….50

3 Working from Home: Lessons from Christchurch

‘The Christchurch earthquake hammered home, "in just 22 seconds", the importance of businesses providing remote access to the workplace’.

Communications Minister Amy Adams, 12th of November 2012.

Overview

This research was commissioned as a joint

initiative between the Inland Revenue (IR)

and the Public Service Association (PSA) to

explore the organisational and worker

experiences of working from home (WFH)

arrangements in the aftermath of the

Christchurch earthquakes. It presents

findings from a survey of 211 Inland Revenue employees and 36 team leaders who worked

from home and/or managed others who worked from home in the period following the 22nd

of February 2011 and subsequent earthquakes in Christchurch. Survey data is supplemented

with qualitative data from 39 participants across four focus groups conducted with

employees, team leaders and union delegates. In addition, interviews were conducted with

key stakeholders. Issues surrounding staff readiness and capacity to return to work, the use

of ICT in the management of WFH arrangements and the pattern and nature of WFH are

discussed. Perceptions of team leaders and the factors that shape worker experiences of

these flexible work arrangements are also presented. The research concludes by identifying a

number of recommendations for managing WFH arrangements within a complex post-

disaster environment and further, points to insights that might inform considerations of

flexible working arrangements in a business as usual (BAU) environment.

Research Context

Natural disasters disrupt the nature of work. In post-disaster environments, flexible work

arrangements (FWAs) are increasingly promoted as an organisational resource to ensure

business and employment continuity (Alvaro, de Assis and Fernando, 2011). In particular, the

introduction of WFH arrangements in a post-disaster environment is seen to enable

organisations to operate when work site access is restricted, assist in the re-allocation of

work tasks and processes and facilitate a swift return to business continuity during a recovery

period (ITAC, 2005). For public service organisations, FWAs have a particularly critical role to

play in ensuring continuity of ‘essential’ services. While widely proposed, little is known of the

distinct challenges employees and organisations face in the implementation of these FWAs

following a natural disaster. The Christchurch earthquakes that began in September 2010 are

the most significant natural disasters in New Zealand’s recent history. The earthquake that

struck on the 22nd of February 2011 resulted in the loss of 185 lives, the displacement of

workforces, widespread damage to buildings and infrastructure and sustained disruptions to

critical services. Recent reports note that the February 2011 earthquake alone resulted in

disruption to over 6,000 businesses and 52,000 employees for sustained periods of time

(Stevenson et al., 2011). For some organisations, operating in a post-disaster environment

resulted in the adoption of new forms of work organisation and work practices.


Research Background

The Inland Revenue Earthquake Management Project

The earthquake that struck Christchurch on the 22nd February 2011 resulted in the immediate

closure of Inland Revenue’s sole premises at 224 Cashel Street, the suspension of all their

operations and the displacement of its entire workforce of 828 staff. Within 24 hours of that

adverse event a number of managers and staff came together at the Wigram Airforce

Museum to form the Inland Revenue Christchurch Recovery Team (CRT). With no access to

premises, paperwork, technology or people, the CRT established a structure that brought

support and business continuity functions together to ‘manage and co-ordinate all ongoing

Inland Revenue operations, support cross-government functions, and prepare for the future

delivery of Inland Revenue services in Christchurch’. Once functional streams and leads were

in place, the organisation adopted a three phase recovery strategy: Phase I- Response, Phase

II -Recovery, and Phase III- Re-invention.

Phase I Response: ‘Getting back to work’:

With the establishment of the CRT, initial recovery activities were focused on staff welfare

and the sourcing of temporary lease arrangements. In addressing welfare issues, staff were

sent home on full pay enabling them to focus first on their own personal circumstances. In

the days that followed contact was re-established with staff, individual living circumstances

assessed, teams assigned or staff redeployed to other government agencies or volunteer

organisations to assist with their recovery work. As the CRT focused on sourcing alternative

work premises, a range of flexible working arrangements, including working from home

(WFH) were introduced for a variety of reasons, one being to ensure business continuity. For

some, the nature of their existing work enabled them to work from a home environment or in

the community almost immediately. For others, who worked in business areas regarded as

unsuitable for working from home, a series of options were deployed including: the allocation

of different work tasks to enable work to be completed at home, or assignment to other

government agencies or sites to address wider needs within Christchurch. As the CRT have

noted ‘Increased flexible working conditions were a direct response to the circumstances in

Christchurch. While valuable lessons have been taken from this experience, the earthquake

recovery project was not established to initiate new working conditions or to increase the

overall flexibility of Inland Revenue’s workforce’.

To address feelings of isolation amongst staff and to facilitate team interaction, the CRT

introduced a range of communications channels and identified a number of meeting sites to

encourage staff mobility and interaction, understanding the social importance of workplace

loss. The establishment of an IR Facebook site, 0800 telephone number, drop in centres,

walking groups and motivational meetings with senior managers were just some of the

communication mechanisms put in place by CRT to facilitate staff connectivity within these

new work arrangements. Alongside communication mechanisms, new policies and


procedures were devised and implemented to guide the management of these new working

arrangements. In the weeks that followed temporary sites were sourced providing

accommodation for approximately 500 staff on a ‘rostered hours’ or shift basis. WFH was

designed as a temporary work arrangement, to sit alongside processes where staff would be

progressively relocated to temporary work accommodation, or, seconded to other

government agencies to help with recovery activities. By May 2011 most staff had returned to

working their full contracted hours, which for many was a combination of working from home

and ‘topping up’ hours in temporary IR sites. In total 788 staff were redeployed across a range

of temporary sites which, in addition to their own homes, included Winston Avenue, Wigram

Air Force Museum, Ballarat Way, Maces Road, Windmill Center and Wrights Road.

On the 13th of June 2011 a further series of substantial aftershocks occurred resulting in the

displacement of over 450 contact centre and collections staff from Winston Avenue. It was

following the June earthquakes, as priorities intensified around the sourcing of temporary

leased accommodation, that WFH arrangements were introduced more widely. As an interim

arrangement for those displaced from Winston Avenue, staff were redeployed with

appropriate tools and tasked with completing electronic correspondence or a range of other

duties from home. One of the challenges faced by the CRT at that time was to secure and

allocate computer equipment necessary to facilitate these FWAs and work agenda.

Phase II Recovery – ‘Return to IR work’:

By July 2011 the Inland Revenue response to the earthquakes had transitioned into the

recovery phase of development. With the central focus of getting staff back into an

organisational environment, CRT activities continued to be directed towards the sourcing of

suitable temporary sites, the management of staff wellbeing, a return to full work capacity

and planning for the reinvention phase. In keeping, functional teams were restructured into

five streams of Facilities Management, People Relationships & Communications, Business

Continuity IR, Business Continuity Community and Phase 3 Planning (see Appendix A for an

overview of CRT structures). Human resource policies governing WFH were extended to July

31st. It was at this stage that team leaders returned to a BAU method of allocating work and

the completion of team member work reports.

Over the months that followed, IR sourced alternative accommodation across 33 leased sites

and shared spaces. In addition, a number of systems were put in place to manage working

times, build resilience and emotional sustainability and reduce staff anxiety. The use of WFH

arrangements declined by November 2011 as the 640 staff that remained working for IR

Christchurch were redeployed across temporary IR sites. A further 63 staff were seconded to

other government and non-government agencies.

Further seismic activity on the 23 December 2011 forced the short term closure of a number

of those temporary sites. Interim business contingency plans were simultaneously


implemented while temporary sites were inspected and by mid-January 2012 these sites

were ready for use. Staff worked from other temporary sites during this time, and as a large

proportion of staff were on planned annual leave there was no requirement for staff to work

from home. By the end of 2011, 10 months after the February earthquakes, the organisation

was back to full business capacity with the entire workforce working from temporary sites on

the specific work priorities of their business groups.

Phase III Re-invention – Creation of New Premises

Over the last 12 months the focus of the Christchurch Rebuild Programme team, formerly the

Christchurch Recovery team, has transitioned towards the rebuild of their Christchurch

operations and in providing long term support for staff wellbeing. As part of the rebuild

programme a number of new sites have been opened including 72 and 74 Moorhouse

Avenue, Russley Road. A Mid City office is scheduled for May 2013, in addition to Durham

Street which is part of a government initiative to integrate services through the creation of a

centre that will house various government departments, making it more accessible to

customer needs. With the move into the final phase of recovery a number of the Christchurch

Rebuild Programme team functions have been moved back into their respective BAU

segments. The Christchurch Rebuild Programme team describes their focus for 2013 and

beyond as centered on ‘Government Key Priorities, Better Public Services, Cross Government

initiatives and on the building and maintaining of emotional wellbeing of the public sector’.


Summary of Findings

This report discusses the survey responses from 247 IR staff and a set of follow-up focus

groups across a number of core themes relating to working from home arrangements

including: the return to work; the implementation, conditions and nature of working from

home; the management and experiences of home workers and the future demand for FWAs

in a ‘business as usual’ environment. The report concludes with a set of insights for future

business continuity and BAU practices.

Experiences of working from home were mixed which in part was shaped by individual’s

organisational level, living circumstances, and caring responsibilities…

Experiences of working from home had different outcomes for staff in the aftermath of the

February earthquakes. For some, whose homes were badly damaged and/or had significant

disruption to utilities, the experience was more negative and posed greater disadvantages. In

contrast, for those who experienced little or short disruption to their utilities and who had

caring responsibilities, the experience was more positive regarding certain benefits.

Employees cited greater benefits of working from home than team leaders who also worked

from home. Interestingly, the survey data highlighted team leaders’ more negative

perceptions of potential worker outcomes if future WFH arrangements were implemented in

a BAU environment. These findings suggest that within a post-disaster environment, work

demands need to be closely aligned with individual circumstances.

Relatedly, the high variability of individual staff circumstances at the time of the February

earthquake shaped staff’s ‘readiness to return to work’ and posed significant challenges for

the organisation…

While most staff were ‘ready to return to work’ within a month, their readiness was shaped in

part by personal living circumstances including: the length of time without utilities and their

caring responsibilities. Of note, few staff began working before they felt ready to do so. This

suggests that the organisational policy of placing employees on full pay with limited

expectations of outputs for a period of time following the earthquake was appropriate and

likely to have contributed to positive outcomes for employees. Finally, a large proportion of

staff also did not begin working until a month or more after they felt ready to, thus

highlighting scope for the organisation to benefit from more immediate continuity of work

from some staff.


Working from home was a full-time activity for most staff, who often altered their working

times to overcome technological difficulties and to balance their working and living

circumstances…

Staff worked from home for various lengths of time over a nine month period. During that

time, most staff worked 7 hours or more per day. A large group of staff reported sometimes

working in the early hours of the morning (between 5am-8am) or in the evenings (6pm-

10pm), which focus group participants reported was frequently to overcome technology

difficulties experienced during peak work hours and/or to meet family and other

commitments. Over half of those who responded had significant caring responsibilities while

working from home, many also spent time during their working day liaising with trades

people or formal bodies. These findings indicate that the ability of staff to alter their working

times and arrangements in a post-disaster environment may be an optimal means of

managing work organisation and offer a more positive experience for staff.

While most staff felt they had the same or greater influence over their work while working

from home, the nature of their work environment offered significant challenges for some

staff…

While most staff worked within a non-shared home, few did so within a dedicated separate

workspace. While working from home, staff indicated that they had considerable influence

over the start and finish times of the work day, the order and way in which they completed

their tasks, and the pace at which they worked. In contrast, staff noted less influence over the

tasks performed, the days and number of hours worked and the working of additional hours.

For some staff, there was a lack of continuity of work between their pre- and post-

earthquake environments.…

The February earthquakes resulted in a change in the nature of work for a significant

proportion of employees and in the membership and location of teams. In the focus groups,

team leaders noted the difficulty of finding appropriate work for employees to do from home

- thus explaining, in part, the challenges in getting employees back to work. These findings

firmly point to the value in testing flexible work options for a broader pool of staff in a BAU

environment, as part of a business continuity plan. The provision of FWAs as part of a

business continuity management plan would enable IR to identify work appropriate to a WFH

environment, ensure continuity of operations and address wellbeing concerns of staff

operating within adversely affected environments.

Communication played a critical role in the organisation and management of new work

arrangements in the aftermath of the earthquakes….

Staff noted the usefulness of the IR Facebook page, the telephone, the 0800 number and

email in enabling them to maintain contact. Further discussions within the focus groups


revealed that various communication channels were utilized by staff for different purposes. In

particular, employees noted that due to technological issues they frequently supplemented

direct communication via phone, email or text, with more up-dated information, via the IR

Facebook page or 0800 number. Staff also reported the importance of supplementing remote

communication with face-to-face meetings. These findings highlight the role of diverse

communication channels in meeting the varying circumstances and needs of a dispersed

workforce in a post-disaster environment.

Despite their mixed experiences, there is strong demand for the future provision of flexible

work arrangements in a BAU environment, with most staff favouring a ‘hybrid’ working

from home arrangement - although improvements would need to be made…

In the future, flexi-time, working from home, a compressed work week and the ability to

change employment status are of particular interest for staff seeking greater flexibility at

work. Reflecting on their experiences of their work arrangements following the February

earthquakes, staff within the focus groups indicated a preference for a ‘partial’ or ‘hybrid’

WFH arrangement in a BAU environment. In addition, staff noted greater access to technical

support and co-ordinated organisation of face-to-face time with team members and team

leaders as areas where improvements would be needed. For team leaders improved

accountability and reporting structures, adequate training and clearer guiding policy are areas

that require attention if WFH arrangements were provided in the future.


Methods and Data Collection

This research project had three main phases which involved scoping workshops, a large

online survey and follow-up focus groups.

Phase one: Employee Workshops

As part of the Inland Revenue Christchurch PSA Annual members meeting (AMM) on the 31st

of May 2012, the PSA held breakout sessions with 87 members and delegates to explore their

experiences of working from home as part of the IR response to the Canterbury earthquakes.

The purpose of these sessions was to validate initial anecdotal evidence that formed part of

the research’s initial scope and to identify key themes that would help inform the

development of an online survey and follow-up focus groups. Using material provided by the

research team, the delegates obtained feedback around four orientating questions:

1. Following the February earthquake, what flexible working options were made

available to you? What options did you take up and why?

2. What were the main benefits to you of this working arrangement?

3. What issues or challenges did you face in taking up that flexible work option?

4. What improvements would have made the experience better for you?

Phase two: Online Survey

In the second phase of the project, the research themes that emerged from the PSA AMM

were further explored through secondary data. An extensive review of academic and

practitioner journals, government reports, telework associations and web sites was initially

conducted. A database of academic articles was constructed, and filtered for articles

pertaining to organisational and worker outcomes of telework – this produced a refined

database of over 200 articles. A review of the main theoretical debates and empirical

evidence was subsequently undertaken and used to inform the development of an online

survey.

Primary data was collected through an online survey that sought information relating to

employee and team leader experiences and perceptions of working from home. In addition,

team leaders completed a separate section that sought information about their experience of

managing others who were working from home. To test the accuracy of wording and content

of items, the survey was piloted across a sample of PSA and team leaders during October

2012. The survey was administered online from the 30th of October to the 14th of November

2012.

The sample of employees and team leaders were obtained from workforce listings at the IR

Canterbury office. The survey was distributed to a total of 669 staff - 568 employees, 59 team

leaders, 17 managers and 25 staff who were found to be no longer working at IR. Only those

who had worked from home for a period of 1 week or more from the February 2011

earthquake were eligible to complete the survey. Personal identification codes were sent out


to all potential participants providing them with the ability to save and return to the survey

dependent on their work demands. Reminder emails were sent out to staff on the 7th and

again on the 12th of November 2012. A total of 247 staff responded to the survey, of which

211 were employees and 36 were team leaders located across 24 business units. 1 By

excluding the surveys that bounced back, the returned response rate was 36.1% for

employees (including any managers that did not identify as team leaders) and 61% for team

leaders.

Almost half of the staff sample, worked within operations delivery, contact centres and

investigations SME. The vast majority of the sample worked full-time (92.2%), and the

average working hours were 37.25 hours per week. This sample represented a long-standing

and stable workforce with just over half of those who responded (58.3%) indicating that they

had worked at the Inland Revenue for 10 or more years, with another 25.1% having worked

with the IRD for 5-10 years. The majority of staff who responded were male (68.4%) and

identified as New Zealand European (82.4%). Their average age was 44.75 years. This group

was highly qualified with approximately 90% of the respondent sample indicating that they

had a tertiary certificate or higher. Finally, 75.5% indicated that they belonged to a union.

These descriptive indicators describe the sample as a whole but there were some notable

differences between the employee and team leader groups in both their working and

demographic profile. Further detail regarding the sample profile is provided in Section 1.

Phase three: Focus Groups

The survey data is supplemented with qualitative data from four voluntary focus groups that

were conducted separately with 22 employees, 10 team leaders and 7 trade union delegates.

The focus groups were scheduled to explore the dynamics that shaped individual experiences

of working from home and to explore the initial survey findings in greater detail. General

employees were invited to attend one of two focus groups that ran on the 28th of November

2012. The response to this invitation was strong and these focus groups were over-subscribed.

Some employees, who were unable to participate in a focus group, forwarded written

comments. Two further focus groups were conducted with team leaders and union delegates

on the 29th of November 2012. All the focus groups ran for approximately 90 minutes and

were audio-recorded. The data was subsequently transcribed and analysed.

1 The data presented in this report focuses on staff who worked from home for a period of 1 week or longer following the 22 February 2011 and subsequent earthquakes (a total of 244 employees and team leaders). Responses from the three additional team leaders who did not work from home are only included in participant profile analyses and where issues of managing working from home are discussed.


Section 1: Profile of Participants

Demographic Profile

Gender

Most of those who participated in the survey were male (69.4%), although the gender profiles

of the employee and team leader groups slightly varied. A greater proportion of team leaders

were female (37.1%) when compared to the employee group (30.6%).

Age

The average employee age was 44.6 years with a range of between 22 to 71 years old. Team

leaders were found to be slightly older with an average age of 46.3 years. This team leader

group fell within a much narrower band of ages ranging from 28 to 57 years old (see Table 1.1

below).

Table 1.1. Age Profile

Employees % Team Leaders %

24 years or younger 2 -

25-29 years 6.6 6.9

30-34 years 13.7 6.8

35-39 years 13.2 3.4

40-44 years 12.2 13.8

45-49 years 15.8 27.5

50-54 years 14.2 34.4

55-59 years 12.1 6.8

60-64 years 8.7 -

65 years or older 1.5 -

Total 100% 100%

Employee n= 197, Team Leader n=29 2

Female and male employees varied in age significantly where females were almost 4 years

older on average (47.1 years) than their male colleagues (43.5 years), (p =0.04)3 (see figure

1.1 below for percentage frequency of age bands by gender). Female team leaders were also

found to be slightly older than their male counter-parts (46.8 and 45.7 years respectively)

although this difference was not found to be statistically significant.

2 Specific sample sizes are presented for all tables and figures to provide information about variable response rates relating to individual survey questions. Percentages and means given throughout the document reflect the ‘valid percent’ of the respondent sample.

3 All ‘significant‘ differences reported throughout the document are based on appropriate parametric and non-parametric tests (including, independent t-tests, chi square analysis, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, and Mann Whitney U tests) and are significant at the p<0.05 level of lower. For further information please contact the researchers.


Ethnicity

Most employees (80%) identified as New Zealand European. A further 5% of employees

identified as being of both NZ European and Maori origin, or as Maori. The remainder of the

employee group consisted of Samoan, Chinese, Indian and ‘Other’ ethnicities. The majority of

employees in the latter group identified as either ‘Other European’ or with more than one

ethnicity group. As figure 1.2 further demonstrates, the diversity of the employee group is

clearly contrasted with the diversity of the team leader group with 97.1% of team leaders

identifying as New Zealand European.

2.9%

8.0%

13.8%

13.0%

13.8%

15.9%

13.0%

10.9%

8.7%

0.0%

0.0%

3.4%

13.8%

12.1%

8.6%

15.5%

17.2%

15.5%

8.6%

5.2%

24 years or younger

25-29 years

30-34 years

35-39 years

40-44 years

45-49 years

50-54 years

55-59 years

60-64 years

65 years or older

Figure 1.1 Employee Age Groups by Gender

Female, n=58 Male, n=138


Education

In general, Inland Revenue staff were found to be highly educated. Over half (65%) of all the

staff that responded hold a tertiary certificate or higher. In addition, 42.1% and 47% of the

employee and team leader groups respectively held a Bachelor’s or Post-graduate degree

(see figure 1.4 below). No significant differences in educational level were found between

demographic or organisational groupings.

Interestingly, the non-response rate for educational levels was particularly high for team

leaders. Of the 17 team leaders that did respond to this question, all held tertiary certificate

or higher.

80%

1%

4%

3% 2%

2%

8%

Figure 1.2 Ethnicity of Employees, (n=205)

NZ European Maori

NZ European/Maori Samoan

Chinese Indian

Other

97%

3%

Figure 1.3 Ethnicity of Team Leaders (n=34)

NZ European Maori

12%

15%

28%

35%

10%

18%

29%

18%

35%

Other

Post-graduate degree

Bachelor's degree

Tertiary certificate

Trade certificate

Figure 1.4 Levels of Education

Team Leaders, n=17 Employees, n=145


Level of unionization

Over two thirds of the employee (77.1%) and team leader (65.7%) participants indicated that

they belonged to one of the three unions representing staff in Inland Revenue.

Working Profile

Business unit

Almost half of the employees who responded to the survey (46.9%) worked within operations

delivery (21.8%), contact centres (13.3%) and investigations SME (11.8%). In line with this

representation, the largest groups of team leaders were from Investigations SME (25%) and

the operations delivery (22.2%) units.

Employment status

At the time of the February earthquake most participants worked full-time in their roles

(91.3% employees; 97.2% team leaders). Contrary to recent trends of non-standard work in

New Zealand in which female workers’ share of part-time work more than doubles that of

their male colleagues (OECD, 2012), male employee participants were significantly more likely

to be working part time than their female colleagues (see figure 1.5) (p=0.015).

Work hours

On average, employees worked for 36.9 hours per week before the February 22, 2011

earthquake within a range of 15 to 50 hours. Team leaders worked longer hours on average

at 39.1 hours per week. Weekly hours ranged from 20 hours for a part-time team leader to a

maximum of 60 hours for a full-time worker working in Investigations SME.

12%

88%

1%

98%

Part-time

Full-time

Figure 1.5 Employment Status of Employees by Gender

Female, n=64 Male, n=143

1.1%

7.5%

51.7%

39.7%

0.0%

3.7%

51.9%

44.4%

10 to < 20 hrs

20 to <30 hrs

30 to < 40 hrs

40 hrs or more

Figure 1.6 Paid Hour Ranges for Staff

Team leaders, n=34 Employees, n=174


Length of service

The participants represent a long-serving and stable group of employees with just over half of

the employees (55%) and three quarters of team leaders (77.8%) indicating that they had

worked at Inland Revenue for 10 or more years. Another 26.5% and 16.5% of employees and

team leaders respectively had worked in the organisation for between 5 and 10 years. Only

2.4% of employees had 2 or less years experience working at Inland Revenue.

Employee n=211, Team Leaders n =36

Table 1.2 Length of Service

Length of service Employees % Team Leaders %

less than 1 year .5 -

1 to less than 2 years 1.9 -

2 to less than 5 years 16.1 5.6

5 to less than 10 years 26.5 16.7

10 years plus 55.0 77.8

Total 100% 100%


‘The home was destroyed so we moved out to a different property which had to be developed overnight. We didn’t have basic facilities so my husband was working on that while I was trying to work and not get plaster on the computer. So there were things we were trying to live with, but that was the circumstances at the time and we did what we had to do’.

Employee Focus Group

Section 2: ‘Getting Back to Work’

The high variability of individual staff circumstances at the time of the February earthquake

shaped staff’s ‘readiness to return to work’ and posed significant challenges for the

organisation.

Changing living circumstances

When the February earthquake hit, a large proportion of staff were living in their own homes

(70%, see figure 2.1). While most were able to

remain in that home, for approximately one

fifth of staff (18.1%), the disaster resulted in a

long-term change to their main dwelling.

The devastation to roads, reduced number of

retail outlets and diminished services

impacted on all staff as they began to deal

with the aftermath of the earthquakes. In

addition, for those who had to re-locate and

those whose homes sustained serious damage,

there were significant ongoing effects as they began to work from home.

The February and subsequent earthquakes led to disruption in the living circumstances of a

large proportion of staff who remained in their main dwelling, although the severity of

disruption varied greatly between staff. Between 35% and 45% of staff had no disruption to

their electricity, water, sanitation, telephone or internet services following the 22nd of

February earthquake.

In own home 70%

In family home 5%

In rented accommodation

25%

Figure 2.1 Main Dwelling of Staff on the 22nd of February 2011 (n=242)


‘I think that they talk about one size fits all and that can't work. They've got to find out what their staffs’ individual circumstances are and tailor their response to that’.


Approximately another third experienced

disruption to these services for up to one

week. Thus, by the end of the first week,

services were available for over two thirds of

all staff (79.1% had electricity, 68% had

water, 65% had sanitation facilities, 86.5%

had telephone services and 82.8% had access

to the internet) (see figure 2.2). This is in

keeping with other reports who noted that, in general, power was restored to 82% of

households within 5 days and to 95% of households within 2 weeks (Stevenson et al., 2011).

The greatest disruption over the longest period of time was to sanitation and toilet services;

15.6% of staff did not have these services available to them for three or more weeks and for

2% it took between 6-9 months for these services to be fully restored. At the time of the

survey, over a year and half after the February earthquake, one team leader still did not have

sanitation services available to them.

Telephone services were the least disrupted service with only 3.4% of staff still experiencing

disruption after 3 weeks. As later discussion in Section 3 demonstrates, the telephone

became a crucial mode of communication for the workforce in the period that they were

working from home.

When staff work from home, their family situation and accommodation arrangements are

likely to have a more pronounced impact on their work process than when working in the

office. At the time of the February earthquake, staff lived in a range of living situations.

Approximately one third lived with their partner and children (32.4%), another third with only

their partner (30.7%), and approximately one in ten lived with only their children (10.2%) or

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Electricity Water Sanitation Telephone Internet

Figure 2.2 Length of Disruption to Services for Staff (n range from 174-199)

6-12 months

2-6 months

1-2 months

1-3 weeks

up to 1 wk


lived alone (12%) (see figure 2.3). A further 8.6% of staff lived in mixed family groups

including parents, siblings, grandchildren, in-laws, nephews and nieces.

Return to work

Most staff indicated their readiness to return to work within 4 weeks of the February

earthquake (82.4% of employees and 100% of team leaders). While some began working

within that time period, for another large proportion it was a month later before they

returned to work. Significantly, while team leaders unanimously indicated their readiness to

work within 4 weeks, almost a third (30.3%) did not return to work until after 4-12 weeks had

passed (see figure 2.4).

Living alone 12%

Partner 31%

Own children 10%

Partner & own children

32%

Mixed family grouping

9%

Flatmates 4%

Other 2%

Figure 2.3 Personal Living Situation on the 22nd of February 2011 (n=244)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Employee readiness to

work

Employee return to

work

Team Leader readiness to

work

Team leader return to

work

Figure 2.4 Staff Readiness and Return to Work (employees n=210, team leaders n=33)

> 12 wks

8 to < 12 wks

4 to < 8 wks

1 to < 4 wks

Less than 1 week


The likely variability in personal living circumstances of employees in post-disaster

environments poses a significant challenge for organisations. While, most employees were

‘ready to return to work’ within a month, their readiness was shaped in part by their living

circumstances. Not surprisingly, the length of time before employees felt ready to return to

work varied with the length of time that their living accommodation was without facilities

including electricity, water, sanitation/toilet facilities, telephone and internet and broadband.

Those who had their services restored within one week of the February earthquake were

much more likely to be ready to work within that same time frame than those who had

greater delays in accessing basic facilities (p levels were consistently <.001).

Analysis also suggests that readiness to return to work was related to whether staff had

caring responsibilities. Those with caring responsibilities were significantly more likely to

need more time before they felt ready and available for work than those without such

responsibilities (p=0.004). These findings highlight that within a post-disaster environment,

work demands should be closely aligned with individual circumstances.

Importantly, few employees began working before they felt ready to do so, suggesting that

the organisational policy of placing employees on full pay with limited expectations of

outputs for a period of time following the earthquake was appropriate and likely to have

contributed to longer term positive outcomes for their employees. The focus group data

further suggests that team leaders in particular, played a crucial role in the evaluation of

employee circumstances and appropriate allocation of work.


Section 3: Working from Home in a Post-disaster Environment

Working from home was a full-time activity for most staff, who often altered their working

times to overcome technological difficulties and to balance their working and living

circumstances. While most staff felt they had the same or greater influence over their work

while working from home, the nature of their work environment offered challenges for

some staff.

Work patterns

Employees worked from home for various lengths of time over a nine month period. During

that time most employees worked from home for an average of 4 months or 124 days. Team

leaders worked from home for periods of time that ranged from 1 month to 8.7 months with

an average of 3.7 months or 111 days.

On average employees returned to their normal working hours within 7.27 weeks, as

compared with team leaders who returned to normal hours on average within 3.45 weeks. Of

those employees who worked from home, 13.8% worked 6 hours or less but most worked

approximately full-time hours; employees worked an average of 7.37 hours per day, while

team leaders on average worked a slightly longer day of 8.05 hours per day4. Over 4% of

employees and 19% of team leaders worked more than a 40 hour week when working from

home (see table below).

Table 3.1 Daily hours worked from home

Daily Hours Employees % Team Leaders %

3 0.6 -

4 1.9 -

5 6.4 -

6 5.1 9.6

7 27.6 4.6

8 53.8 66.6

9 3.8 9.6

10 0.6 9.6

Employee n= 156, Team leader n=21

4 Participants were asked to respond to questions pertaining to working from home in relation to the longest

period in which they worked from home.


In examining the start dates of this work arrangement it can be seen that there were two

times during 2011 that staff commenced working from home in larger numbers: following the

February earthquakes and again following the June aftershocks. It was between the months

of September and November 2011 that most staff returned to an IR work site.

International research suggests that one of the challenges employees face while working

from home is maintaining a clear division between their work and home lives (Felstead and

Jewson, 2000; Tietze and Musson, 2003). In looking at daily work patterns it was found that

most employees (94.8%) and most team leaders (96.9%) ‘often’ or ‘always’ worked during

normal business hours (8-6pm). In addition to working during normal business hours, a large

group ‘always’ or ‘often’ worked in the early morning between the hours of 5-8am (31.9%)

and another 16.6% ‘sometimes’ worked during these hours (see figure 3.2). Working in the

evening (6-10pm) or night-time hours (10pm-5am) was less common for this group of staff.

63% and 96% respectively seldom or never worked during these times. Even less common

was working during the weekends. In contrast, for team leaders 40.7% sometimes worked on

a Saturday or Sunday. In addition, working early mornings or evenings was more common for

team leaders. 33% and 26% respectively reported that they ‘often’ or ‘always’ worked during

these times.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Figure 3.1 Introduction and Cessation of Working from Home Arrangements (n= 188)

started WFH

Finished WFH


‘..the technical problems with the connectivity meant that there were times where you just got frustrated and went on a break and later on in the evening sometime you might have more luck so you might have done something then’.


‘I’ve got young children as well and I could finish at 3 o’clock and log back in at night and do more work. Sometimes you didn’t feel like you had a rest from work but that was your choice, because you had that flexibility to be able to fit everything else in all day’.


Employees across the focus groups frequently noted that working in the early morning hours

between 5-8am was more efficient for them because they did not experience the technology

problems that occurred later in the day due to system overloads. Others reported that they

chose to vary their working times to fit in with childcare responsibilities. These findings

indicate that organisational flexibility around

working times might be warranted as part of

ensuring employees’ ability to maintain high

levels of efficiency. It also points to the

particular challenges employees face in

maintaining clear divisions between their home

and work lives when operating within a post-

disaster environment.

Caring responsibilities

One of the main motivations for introducing FWAs in a post-disaster situation is that it allows

staff to meet demands in their immediate and often adversely affected environment. The

survey found that most employees worked on IR

business during normal business hours when

working from home. In addition, just over a third

of employee participants spent time caring for

their immediate family or liaising with formal

bodies regarding their living circumstances. A

further quarter (26.1%) spent time liaising with

trades and 14.7% spent time volunteering in

their community or neighbourhood. In all cases

2%

4%

22%

32%

95%

4%

7%

27%

33%

97%

Nights, 10pm-5am

Weekends

Evenings, 6-10pm

Early mornings, 5-8am

Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm

Figure 3.2 Work Patterns when Working from Home Showing percentage who 'often' or 'always' worked during these times.

Team Leaders, n=25-32

Employees, n=148-208


on average participants spent less than 2 hours per week on these duties (see figure 3.3).

For over half of all staff there were significant caring responsibilities while WFH (53.3%). 6.1%

of staff cared for at least one child under the age of 5 (own or others’), 25.4% cared for at

least one child between the ages of 5 and 18, 10.7% cared for elderly relatives and 2.5% cared

for someone with a long term illness or disability while working from home (figure 3.4). A

small percentage of staff had multiple caring responsibilities for children, elders and/or

individuals with an illness or disability (4.7%). Other responsibilities that staff reported were

predominantly the care of neighbours and pets (10.5%).

Approximately one quarter or 25.6% of employees lived on their own while WFH. A further

28.6% had one other person at home and 45.9% had between 2 and 7 people at home while

working from home. For team leaders 34.8% lived on their own, 30.4% with one other person,

34.7% had between 2 and 7 people at home while working from home.

32%

26%

15%

35%

30%

27%

21%

42%

Liasing with formal bodies

Liaising with trades

Community / neighbourhood work

Caring for immediate family

Figure 3.3 Additional Demands while Working from Home

Team Leaders, n=33 Employees, n=211

10.5%

2.5%

10.7%

25.4%

6.1%

46.7%

Neighbours

Care of person with illness or disability

Care of elderly relatives

Care of children (5-18)

Care of children (under 5)

No caring responsibilites

Figure 3.4 Caring Responsibilities while Working from Home (n=220)


Place of work

Most staff who worked from home (72.4% employees and 65.5% team leaders) did so within

a home that was not shared with another worker (figures 3.5 and 3.6). Only 13.8% employees

and 20.7% of the team leaders worked within their own shared or another IR worker’s shared

home. In addition, a small proportion of staff (6.2% of employees and 13.8% of team leaders)

reported that their work involved moving between sites/ offices and other locations.

Most participants reported working within a shared living space (48.3% employees and 65.5%

of team leaders, see figure 3.7). A much smaller proportion indicated that they worked in a

dedicated space within a shared living arrangement (21.9% of employees and 10.3% of team

leaders) or were able to work in a separate dedicated work area (26.7% of employees and

24.1% of team leaders). These results highlight the low likelihood of staff being able to work

within a dedicated and separate workspace when WFH in a post-disaster situation and the

potential for work / life conflicts. The potential for conflict may be particularly acute for team

leaders who were working longer hours and undertaking telephone work more often.

Shared home 11%

Non shared home 72%

Other's home

3%

Mobile 6%

Other 8%

Figure 3.5 Place of work Employees (n=210)

Shared home 21%

Non-shared home 65%

Mobile 14%

Figure 3.6 Place of work Team leaders (n=29)


Nature of ‘home’ work

Over half of all staff reported that the work they did while working from home was similar to

work conducted prior to the February earthquakes (56.4%). However, for 42.4% employees

and 45.5% of team leaders the nature of their work differed from their previous work.

Working from home for employees and team leaders alike typically involved the use of a

computer and connection to the internet (see figure 3.8). 41.8% always or often worked on a

telephone, while for 34.9% that was seldom or never the case. For only a third of those

employees who responded (33%) worked using reference materials, whereas for 44.7% they

worked independently of reference materials or files. Employees were least likely to work in

groups while working from home – for 73.6% they never or seldom worked in a group, while

for 46.4% of team leaders their work sometimes involved working with groups.

In examining the degree of influence staff experienced over aspects of their jobs while

working from home, it was found that most employees and team leaders reported a high

degree of influence over their pace of work, the order of tasks, methods of work and the time

2.9%

21.9%

26.7%

48.6%

0

10.3%

24.1%

65.5%

Figure 3.7 Work Space in Working from Home Environment

Team Leaders, n=29

Employees, n=210

10%

33%

42%

89%

98%

14%

28%

70%

90%

94%

Group work

Reference materials

Phone

Internet

Computer

Figure 3.8 Nature of Work from Home Showing percentage who 'often'/ 'always' relied on these work tools

Team Leaders, n=28-30



they started and finished their work day (figures 3.9 & 3.10). Fewer staff felt they could

influence the tasks they did, the days they worked, the number of hours they worked and the

working of additional hours and for employees in particular it was the length of their working

day that they had less influence over in comparison to team leaders. What these findings

highlight is the degree of influence over nature, pace and process of work both groups

experienced while working from home.

Of note, while team leaders worked a greater number of hours per day on average than their

team members, they were also significantly more likely to report greater influence over the

hours they worked (p=0.011), the days they worked (p=0.026) and the working of additional

hours (p=0.002).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tasks done Pace worked

How work was done

Order of tasks

Start and finish times

Number of hours

Days worked

Additional hours

Per

ceta

ge o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Figure 3.9 Degree of Job Influence for Employees, (n range from 209-211)

A lot Some A little None Don't know


Perhaps contrary to what might be expected, staff samples were split as to whether they felt

they had more influence over their work while working from home than they did in a business

as usual (BAU) environment. Under half of both employees (45.2%) and team leaders (35.5%)

thought they had greater influence over their work when working from home when

compared to their previous working arrangements. In contrast, 29% of team leaders and

18.6% of employees felt they actually had less influence when working from home.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tasks done Pace worked

How work was done

Order of tasks

Start and finish times

Number of hours

Days worked

Additional hours

Pe

rce

tage

of

resp

on

de

nts

Figure 3.10 Degree of Job Influence for Team Leaders,

(n=33)

A lot Some A little None Don't know

19%

36%

45%

29%

36%

36%

Less influence

Same influence

Greater influence

Figure 3.11 Degree of Influence compared to before February 2011

Team Leaders, n= 31 Employees, n=210


‘At the start it was a novelty, to work at home. I thought I can hang out my washing while my computers loading up. But then that got quite frustrating. …Not having speedy access, it took so much longer to do anything in the system’


Job demands

The type of work carried out by staff while working from home was also investigated. Figure

3.12 indicates that on the whole, job demands

were high while working from home for

employees. For most (77.2%) the biggest

demand was solving unexpected problems on

their own and meeting precise quality

performance standards (65.5%). For team

leaders it was the meeting of precise quality

standards that exerted the greatest demand on

them (77.4%) (see figure 3.13).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Meeting precise quality

standards

Self-assessing quality of own

work

Solving problems on

own

Repetitive and or

monotonous tasks

Complex tasks Learning new things

Figure 3.12 Job demands for Employees, (n=59)

yes No Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Meeting precise quality

standards

Self-assessing quality of own

work

Solving problems on

own

Repetitive and or

monotonous tasks

Complex tasks Learning new things

Figure 3.13 Job demands for Team Leaders (n ranged from 30-31)

yes No Don't know


Job control

The most commonly cited factor influencing the pace of work for staff was the IR technology

systems (see figure 3.14 & 3.15 below). Just under 95% of employees reported that the

organisational technical systems influenced their pace of work. Participants in the focus

groups mentioned on a number of occasions that there were significant challenges in

overcoming the slowness of the technology systems. Many staff reported being

spontaneously dropped off the system, difficulties with logging back on etc. Not surprisingly

in a post disaster environment, difficulties with external local area telecommunications

networks were also noted by staff to significantly influence their pace of work. In contrast,

just 78.1% of team leaders noted that the technology shaped their pace of work. For team

leaders, performance targets (69%), and management control (60%) were also important

factors shaping their pace of work when WFH.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 3.14 Job Control for Employees, (n from 56-57)

Yes No Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 3.15 Job Control for Team Leaders (n from 28-32)

Yes No Don't know


Section 4: Managing Home Workers

For some staff, there was a lack of continuity of work between their pre- and post-

earthquake environments. Consideration of the unique management demands of a post-

disaster environment including innovative use of communication channels appears to be

critical. Communication played a critical role in the organisation and management of new

work arrangements in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake.

Team composition and location

Team composition and leadership changed for many following the February earthquake. For

half of the team leaders (48.5%), the teams they managed were different to those they had

managed directly prior to 22 February 2011, and, for most, their teams typically consisted of

a highly dispersed workforce. Teams ranged from 5 to 45 members, with an average of

around 12 in each team. Approximately two thirds of team leaders (61.1%) were managing

employees across other locations in addition to those working from home, including staff in

IR buildings within Christchurch and other government departments or agencies within and

outside of Christchurch (figure 4.1). 80.6% of team leaders managed employees who worked

from home and most (50%) managed between 6 and 10 team members who worked from

home during that time. Discussions from the focus groups highlighted that team leaders

operated within adversely affected environments, with some noting the personal and

professional challenges they faced at that time. As one team leader noted “personally, I think

it was very very hard….that first week I found really really hard because you had all these

emotions yourself to deal with”.

In terms of work allocation, 70.4% of team leaders managed workers whose work was fully or

partially assigned by them. However, 22.2% of team leaders managed employees whose work

was assigned by someone else and 7.4% managed employees who self-assigned work from a

group set of tasks. Most team leaders (82.1%) ‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ agreed that they

80.6%

47.2%

33.3%

5.6%

30.6%

5.6%

worked from home

assigned to IR sites in CHCH

assigned to other agencies within CHCH

assigned to other agencies outside of CHCH

assigned for wellbeing

Other

Figure 4.1 Location of employees managed by Team Leaders (n=36)


‘Facebook was great just to know that everyone was still out there because you were completely isolated not just from work but from life all of a sudden, so any connection with anything you used to have was great and for me it was huge going to Facebook’.


monitored the work of their staff as a matter of course. However, for a large group (44.8%)

monitoring the work of employees working from home was also found to be difficult. Given

the difficulties in measuring performance outputs in aftermath of the February earthquakes,

team leaders noted in focus group discussions that teams operated on higher levels of trust.

For some, they found staff to be highly conscientious frequently contacting them when they

were unable to gain access to networks.

Organisational Communication Channels

Communication played a key role in the

organisation and management of work

arrangements following the February

earthquakes. In response to these adverse

events, the CRT introduced a range of

communication channels designed to keep

staff engaged in the recovery and rebuild of

the organisation. The introduction of an IR

Facebook site was a new departure for the

organisation and was specifically designed to ensure that staff were fully informed and were

given the opportunity to provide feedback. The survey results indicate that this web-based

form of communication, along with telephone, and personal Facebook were on average the

most frequently utilised (on a 5-point scale from 1=never to 5=always) (see figure 4.2). Email,

the CRT Newsletter, the 0800 number and text were also used frequently by employees. In

contrast, team leaders more frequently used direct forms of communication including email

and the telephone although the CRT newsletter was also referred to regularly. Texting, the

0800 number and the IR Facebook were used at times by the team leaders.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Me

an fr

equ

ency

on

5-p

oin

t sc

ale

Figure 4.2 Frequency of Use of Communication Channels


Team leader, n=25-33


‘.. the 0800 number, the newsletter and the Facebook were a good way of pushing information out to staff but in terms of staff interacting with the organisation talking with your team leader was probably going to be the best way’


As figure 4.3 highlights for employees, the most useful communication channels were

reported to be the IR Facebook site (64%), telephone (50.7%) and 0800 number (50.2%). In

contrast, team leaders found regular direct contact with their managers and team members,

in the form of phone calls (60.6%), emails (57.6%) to be the most useful. Both employees and

their team leaders also reported the importance of supplementing remote communication

with team meetings either in team members’ homes, or, within conveniently located public

spaces such as cafes.

Feedback from the focus groups suggests that various forms of communication were utilized

by staff for different purposes. In particular, employees noted that due to a number of

technological issues they frequently supplemented direct, and at times infrequent or variable

communication via phone, email or text, with more centralised and continually up-dated

information, via the IR Facebook page or 0800

number. These findings highlight the role of

multiple channels of communication in meeting

the varying circumstances of a dispersed

workforce in a post-disaster environment.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 4.3 Most Useful Forms of Communication for Staff

Employees, n=211

Team leader, n=33


‘productivity was very very good. And accuracy too. The comparison I have is going back into the staff environment and sitting in a noisy room and trying to do the same sort of work. It just took so much longer and less accurate’.


Section 5: Staff Experiences of Working from Home

Experiences of working from home were mixed which in part was shaped by individual’s

organisational level, living circumstances, and caring responsibilities. Employees

experienced significant stress during multiple transitions into and out of temporary

accommodation.

The benefits of WFH in a post-disaster environment

The majority of employees and team leaders agreed or strongly agreed that working from

home allowed them to balance their work and home commitments in the aftermath of the 22

February 2011 earthquake (82.2% and 56.3% respectively) (see figure 5.1 showing agreement

on a 5-point scale from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree).

However, agreement for the two staff groups varied significantly and suggested that team

leaders had a less beneficial experience of working from home than did their employees

(employee M=4.19, Mdn=5; Team leader, M=3.5, Mdn=4)p=.005). Indeed, one in four team

leaders disagreed that working from home helped them to achieve work-life balance.

This general finding is corroborated when

looking at specific benefits and

disadvantages for these staff groups. On

almost all measures, employees

demonstrated significantly higher

agreement of the benefits of working

from home than did their team leaders

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Strongly disagree

disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Figure 5.1. Agreement that WFH enabled staff to Achieve Work-life Balance

Employees, n=202

Team leaders, n=32


‘I can say it suited me. I got fitter, I lost weight and I came off my heart tablets, so it was good for me’


who also worked from home, including: greater flexibility, more independence, greater

environmental control, higher productivity, greater concentration and motivation, more time

for themselves and reduced stress related to commuting (see figure 5.2). However, these

staff groups did not vary on benefits

related to an increased ability to care for

their dependents, having more family time

and feeling safer (all median differences

significant at the p<0.05 level except for*).

Data from the focus groups indicated that some employees also experienced considerable

health benefits of working from home including better control of temperature and more time

around work for physical fitness activities.

Figure 5.2 also provides a useful comparison of employee and team leader experiences

against the perceptions that those same team leaders held about the benefits of working

from home for employees generally. Team leaders demonstrated significantly stronger

agreement that ‘more independence’ and ‘more time to self’ were likely benefits for

employees than what they experienced for themselves when WFH (p<.05). However, the

benefits of ‘staying motivated’ and ‘increased concentration’ were viewed as less likely and in

particular, team leaders demonstrated a significantly lower agreement that WFH would allow

employees to ‘get more work done’ (Mdn=2, M=2.52) than their assessment for their own

work output when working from home (Mdn=3, M=2.97) (p=0.04).

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Figure 5.2 Experience and Perceptions of the Benefits of Working from Home (means).

Employees, n=208 Team Leaders, n=33 Team leaders perceptions about other workers, n=33


‘My living situation was fine, I wasn’t adversely affected by the earthquake and I think that personal circumstances have quite a bit to do with it [experience of WFH]. I’m sort of lucky I suppose that I don’t have young children and my wife works nights so she would be getting in as I was getting ready [for work]…by the time my working day was finished she would be getting up and we could have another coffee together. So that worked fine for me’.


‘Probably for me the isolation was a big issue. So what we decided to do was every second Saturday afternoon we’d just gather the team and say, we went to a Belfast pub, and that continued for several months’.


Those who had caring responsibilities demonstrated a significantly higher agreement than

those with no caring responsibilities that WFH resulted in enabling them to manage caring

responsibilities and gain more time with their family (p<0.001 and p<0.05 respectively). This

group did not vary from non-carers on any other benefit or disadvantage.

The positive outcomes reported by staff also varied according to the level of influence that

they experienced when WFH as compared with their work in the previous BAU environment.

Those who felt that WFH provided them greater

influence over the way they worked than in a

BAU environment, were in higher agreement

about the benefits than those employees who

experienced the same or lower levels of

influence (significant at p<.05 levels for all

benefit factors). As might be expected, some of

the starkest differences between these groups

related to experiences of increased control,

independence and flexibility. Similarly, those

who felt they had greater influence when

working from home were less likely to report

negative outcomes of WFH (significant at p<.05

levels for all factors).

The challenges of WFH in a post-disaster environment

By contrast, employees and team leaders demonstrated greater similarity in their experiences

of the primary challenges of working from home. No significant differences were found

between these groups in their experience of challenges of WFH except that team leaders

demonstrated significantly higher agreement that WFH led to family conflict in their

experience (p=0.019). However, when team leaders were asked to describe the potential

disadvantages of working from home for employees generally, they were consistently more

negative than what their own or their employee’s reported experiences might predict (see

figure 5.3 for means on a 5-point agreement scale,

1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree below, all

median differences (not shown) were significant at

p<0.05 level). In particular, when asked about

likely disadvantages of WFH for their employees,

team leaders agreed at significantly higher rates

that ‘lower commitment’, difficulty in staying

motivated and ‘lower output’ were all likely

disadvantages of WFH (p<0.05).


‘After the 22nd of February I certainly experienced a lot of delayed trauma from the earthquake……so working from home in that kind of environment was very isolating and depressing because you kind of wanted to be out feeling a sense of normality’.


Key disadvantages experienced by both employees and team leaders included loss of social

and professional interaction and reduced information sharing. The focus groups also

highlighted isolation and loss of social interaction as one of the major challenges employees

faced when working from home. Focus group data suggests that feelings of isolation were

made all the more acute because of the disaster

situation in which employees found themselves.

A crucial response to such feelings of isolation was

for work teams to initiate regular meetings with

their team members, often, but not always including

their team leaders. The main benefit of these

meetings was described as gaining social interaction

rather than being specifically work-related.

One other disadvantage cited by employees and

team leaders was the need for them to cover extra financial costs when working from home.

58.9% of staff reported that while working from home they incurred extra expenses. While

there was a reimbursement process made available to staff, evidence from the focus group

suggested that this provision only partially met extra costs and a number of employees found

the process difficult to take advantage of.

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Figure 5.3 Experience and Perceptions of the Challenges of Working from Home

Employee, n= 202-210 Team Leader, n=33 Team Leader perception for others, n=23-29


‘At one stage we got told we had to go and work one day a week in that Winston Avenue building which was the most frightening thing...you know the building would shake. I got angry about that because I didn’t want to be there, I didn’t feel safe there, …it took me forever to get there and I couldn’t work because it was so noisy when I did get there and I just thought it was a complete and utter waste of time’


‘Before the earthquake we had a good relationship with management to a point, after the earthquake it went the other way! No relationship at all. Unions were the last ones to be consulted on anything. We would actually find out when it came out in the updates, we would go ‘this is not what we were told in that meeting’

Union Delegate

The focus group data suggested that staff with highly disrupted facilities at home might have

had more negative experiences of WFH than those with a low level of disruption. In analysing

the survey results no significant difference was found between these staff groups on their

overall ability to balance work and non-work commitments while working from home.

However, those experiencing high, medium or low disruption did vary on some specific

measures of benefits and disadvantages. Those who experienced a higher level of disruption

(2 or more months of disruption to one or more home facility) were significantly less likely

than those experiencing lower levels of disruption (0-3 or 4-7 weeks of disruption) to agree

that WFH provided them greater control over their work environment (p=0.001), or that WFH

allowed them to get more work done

(p=0.01).

The group of staff experiencing high

disruption to their utilities at home

were also more likely to agree than

those experiencing lower disruption

that WFH involved the disadvantages of

getting less work done (p=0.02) and

their work resulting in different duties

(p=0.003).

Staff transitions between worksites

While staff experiences of WFH were mixed, the majority of participants in the survey and

focus groups suggested that they felt their organisation handled the implementation and

management of this working arrangement well, given the challenging circumstances.

However, this generally positive view of organisational practice following the February and

subsequent earthquakes was not extended to the processes related to transitioning in and

out of temporary workspaces before more permanent premises could be developed.

A theme emerging strongly in the focus

groups related to perceptions of poor

decision-making and process in the

relocation of working staff out of their

home and back into temporary

workspaces such as Winston Ave or the

Ilam flats. Some staff reported having

moved work locations up to seven or

eight times after the February

earthquake and they discussed a number

of negative issues relating to these transitions. Three of the most prevalent concerns related

to health and safety issues, reduced productivity, and difficulty in managing home


‘I think if there was one flaw in IRDs approach it was that kind of feeling that around about sort of November, it became…almost like it was an objective of someone’s performance plan to get everybody into an office, back into an office!’


responsibilities when they were required to work in specific locations at short notice. A

number of delegates representing staff in Inland Revenue noted a decline in the level of

workplace consultation in the months following the February earthquakes. Even though

fortnightly meetings with management were in place by mid May, delegates found that issues

that were agreed at those meetings would change within a very short period of time. The

need to feel ‘safe at work’ was also a major concern for members in Christchurch. Delegates

noted difficulties in obtaining reassurances from management around the safety of the

temporary work sites. As one delegate noted ‘there was a lack of transparency in the

communication about the safety of buildings’. Getting access to staff in temporary

accommodation was also found to be difficult at times.

For many staff living in a city experiencing hundreds of aftershocks a week, the move to

temporary and often sub-standard premises promoted significant fear and anxiety. As above,

WFH enabled staff to feel safer while working than they might have outside of the home. The

shift to temporary workspaces removed this feeling of security. A number of staff also

mentioned health and safety concerns relating to the cramped conditions of the temporary

workspaces in which they shared small desks and work tools (such as phones) with their

colleagues, and sat with tearoom facilities (such as fridges and kettles) at their elbows.

Because conditions were often cramped, many staff indicated that they felt they were less

productive once they returned to temporary workspaces. One focus group participant spoke

of having to take turns with a colleague to use the phone when working from a bedroom in

an IR leased house because it was too noisy otherwise. Others noted that the move to

Winston Ave meant that they reduced their work hours from a seven or eight hour day to

four hours a day to fit in with the available shifts.

Some staff also noted the difficulty of managing caring responsibilities during multiple re-

locations. For these staff, every shift to a new temporary workspace required a different set

of arrangements for getting children to and from their school. Such difficulties were

exacerbated when only short notice was given to staff regarding relocation or when staff

were put ‘on call’.

Finally, given the kinds of problems outline above, staff did not always understand why they

were being automatically re-allocated

back into temporary accommodation. A

number remarked that it just seemed to

be a belief of the organisation’s that

working in offices was better than

working at home. This perception led to

frustration and anger for some staff who

had felt that they had already endured a

lot.


‘Everyone’s different so I think that option to have perhaps one or two days in the office and the rest at home [would work]’

Employee Focus Group.

Section 6: Looking forward

Despite their mixed experiences, there is strong demand for the future provision of flexible

work arrangements in a BAU environment, with most staff favouring a ‘hybrid’ working

from home arrangement - although improvements would need to be made.

Future demand for flexible work arrangements (FWAs)

In assessing the future demand for flexible work

arrangements, most staff (98% employees; 93%

team leaders) indicated an interested in having

flexible hours (that is flexible start and finish

times) available to them in the future (see figure

6.1). There was a marked difference between

employees and team leaders groups regarding WFH as a flexible working arrangement;

working from home was considered more preferable for a larger percentage of employees

(80%) than by team leaders (53%) (p <0.002). In contrast, team leaders were most interested

in the availability of a compressed week. The ability to work full hours across 4 or less

workdays was favoured by 72% of team leaders as opposed to just 69% of employees.

7%

38%

41%

32%

45%

72%

53%

93%

24%

41%

44%

48%

58%

69%

80%

98%

Parental leave

Discretionary leave

Additional leave

Care for dependents

Change of status

Compressed week

Working from home

Flexible time

Figure 6.1. Future Demand for Flexible Work Arrangements

Employees, n = 211

Team leaders, n = 36


‘I think one thing the organisation needs to realise is these effects will go on for a number of years. For some of us who weren’t badly affected at the beginning are going to be effected in the years to come when are houses finally come up to be repaired or rebuilt’

Employee Focus Group.

‘I'd support the one to two days [WFH], because we found productivity did go up’

Team Leader Focus Group

Participants in the employee focus groups noted the need for flexibility in the future due to

the long term effects of the earthquakes. In

terms of future access to flexible work

arrangement in a BAU environment, for most

employee focus group participants there was a

strong desire to have a hybrid arrangement

available in the future in which a number of

days were spent in the office and the other

days worked from home. The idea of a hybrid

WFH arrangement was also cautiously

supported by team leaders.

Team leaders were asked about the demand by their team members for FWAs since staff had

returned to IR work sites. As Table 6.1 reveals, since a return to IR offices, there has been

some demand for flexi-time, care for dependents and parental leave but very little demand

for other forms of flexible working arrangements.

Table 6.1. Perceived Demand for FWAs since a return to BAU

Mean

Flexible time 3.00

Care for dependents 2.07

Parental leave 2.04

Discretionary leave 1.85

Change of status 1.81

Working from home 1.63

Additional leave 1.54

Compressed week 1.38

Team Leaders n =36. Table shows mean scores on a 4-point scale (1=none, 2=a little, 3=some, 4=a lot).

Team leaders were asked to select the main constraints in providing WFH arrangements to

employees on a more permanent basis. For just over a third, it was pressure on other

employees and managers and a belief that WFH

arrangements were incompatible with the

nature of work or operating hours that were the

most constraining (see figure 6.2). Of those who

indicated ‘other’ constraints, these largely

centred on beliefs that WFH reduces output,

discipline and team environment.


‘I think IRD have taken the opportunity with the earthquake to enforce on people that they want to impose restrictions around flexi-time in particular’.

Union Delegate Focus Group

‘the concern I have is even though they’re highly paid, highly motivated and self managed I still have a little question mark in my mind whether that’s the right thing [WFH] and, as well as that, there's a lot of other things to consider, like security. So it's not only about the person, it's about the environment, how can we measure time that they're working from home compared to not?’

Team Leader Focus Group

Interestingly, a lack of demand from

employees was not noted by many as

a constraint to the more permanent

introduction of WFH arrangements.

Some of these concerns were borne

out in the team leader focus groups

where a number of team leaders

noted a need for greater clarity around

issues of security and measurement of

outputs and outcomes.

With a return to a business as usual (BAU)

environment, union delegates noted that

management was ‘taking a tougher line on

staff’. In particular, some union delegates

noted that staff now need to take annual leave

or leave without pay to deal with EQC related

issues.

5.6%

13.9%

13.9%

16.7%

22.2%

33.3%

36.1%

No demand from employees

Costs

Size of workplace

No constraints

Other

Incompatible with work/hours

Pressure on other employees and managers

Figure 6.2. Constraints in providing Futrue WFH Arrangements (n=36)


Areas for improvement

In terms of looking to the future, staff were asked to rank a number of areas for improvement

based upon their overall experience of either working from home (employees) or, their

experience of managing others who worked from home (team leaders). For both employees

and team leaders, accessible technical support, regular face-to-face team meetings, and

regular face-to-face meetings with team leaders were rated most highly (see figure 6.3 for

means on 5-point likert type scale of importance, 1=not at all important to 5=very important).

When reflecting on the management of their employees, team leaders rated meetings with

team leaders to be of significantly higher importance than did their employees (Mdn=5 and 4

respectively, p=0.02).

Other ‘somewhat’ or ‘very important’ areas of improvement identified by staff included the

provision of clear accountability and reporting structures, adequate training, availability of

standards and training manuals and a clear reimbursement policy.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Figure 6.3 Areas for Improvement

Team leaders, n=27 Employees, n = 206-211


Section 7: Organisational Learnings

The results of this research point to a number of insights that might contribute to the use of

FWAs as part of a future business continuity planning process, and to the use of FWAs in a

business as usual (BAU) environment.

Working from home arrangements as a business continuity tool (BCT)

Natural disasters highlight the strategic need for business continuity planning (BCP) within

organisations. Such activities are particularly important for public services where continuity of

operations is critical and organisational resilience is promoted (Treasury, 2011). Empirical

research suggest that while BCP processes frequently focus on physical and technical

infrastructural risk, less attention is directed towards employment concerns. Indeed,

maintaining employee engagement and productivity levels, while ensuring employment and

physical personal security are issues that are frequently overlooked (ITAC, 2005). In

addressing this, FWAs are promoted to assist continuity of operations and organisational

agility in post-disaster environments.

The research presented above reaffirms the strategic importance of FWAs as a BCT in the

absence of accessible and structurally safe worksites. The Inland Revenue experience shows

how the complex process of re-allocating resources and work tasks in a post-earthquake

environment can be enabled through the introduction of WFH arrangements. Importantly,

this research also notes the importance of the CRT and team leaders and their ability to

identify work appropriate for working from home as key to the implementation of WFH

arrangements and staff’s return to work. Inland Revenue’s policy of providing staff with a

period of time to address personal living circumstances while on full pay was found to have

likely contributed to positive outcomes for staff. Furthermore, this research highlights the

significance of having appropriate and reliable information technology resources and support

services in place. Innovations with web-based communication channels like the IR Facebook

page, in response to concerns of staff isolation, were found by most to be highly effective in

ensuring engagement across a dispersed workforce. Understanding the usefulness and

purpose of each channel is important given the staff need for up-to-date information,

organisational engagement, technical reports around safety, and more interpersonal

mechanisms, upon which WFH depend.

From an employee perspective, this research reveals that the provision of WFH work

arrangements in a post-disaster environment provides both employment and personal

security at a time when greater validation around safety issues is required. In addition, the

results suggests that positive outcomes of WFH arrangements for staff are related to a

number of factors, including access to a functioning home and work space, the ability to vary

work times to manage increased tensions between working and living demands, the

opportunity to interact professionally and socially, greater consultation around workplace

transitions and safety, and finally clarity around reimbursement policies.


In regard to managing staff in a post-disaster environment, the need for clear consultation,

pre-planned systems and guiding policies was highlighted. In particular, the focus groups

indicated that the management of transitions including the movement of staff in and out of

WFH, temporary accommodation and permanent premises caused significant stress for staff.

For team leaders, whose role was pivotal to implementing and managing FWAs arrangements

as BCTs, one of the more challenging aspects was working with newly composed teams that

were also often highly dispersed. For team leaders, clearer accountability and reporting

structures, availability of guiding policies around new work arrangements and access to

training resources will require attention as part of future business continuity planning.

Altering the way and place where people work has significant organisational implications. The

current Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (HSE Act) places a duty on employers to

provide safe and healthy workplaces, while recognising that ‘employees have a valuable

contribution in making workplaces safe’ (http://www.osh.govt.nz). These are issues that will

need to be addressed in a BAU environment.

Working from home arrangements as part of a continuity of operations strategy is a relatively

new departure for organisations. The experiences of Inland Revenue and their staff will go a

long way toward informing the practices of these forms of work arrangements within other

organisations.

Working from home arrangements in a ‘business as usual’ (BAU) environment

The ‘business case’ for the introduction of FWAs in a BAU environment is well established.

The ability to work from home is seen to be potentially beneficial to both organisations and

their workforces, leading some to point towards a range of outcomes that include increased

staff retention, engagement and satisfaction (WorldatWork, 2011). Indeed, a recent report

from the Institute of Broadband-Enabled Society at the University of Melbourne

demonstrates that FWAs and WFH arrangements can lead to increased productivity and

employee wellbeing – outcomes that they note are primarily dependent upon adequate

resourcing (Bosua et al., 2012). Even in the post-disaster context of this case, the survey

results provide evidence that benefits such as higher productivity and greater concentration

are potential outcomes of WFH arrangements.

While WFH arrangements are seen to be mutually beneficial, as others have noted, such

forms of work can also lead to conflicts and tensions resulting from a re-regulation of working

arrangements (Taskin and Edwards, 2007). In particular, traditional management approaches

based on the ‘visibility’ and ‘presence’ of staff are challenged in a WFH BAU environment

(Felstead et al., 2003). A shift away from ‘observing and assessing individual activity’ toward

‘assessing the quality of outputs or outcomes’ can lead to a reassessment of organisational

norms and values. And as some have cautioned ‘managing by outcomes’ can be dependent

on factors or inputs that staff may have little to no control over. Understanding and

addressing these tensions is regarded as key to achieving positive outcomes for all.

http://www.osh.govt.nz/


Despite their mixed experiences of WFH, the majority of staff indicated a high interest in

accessing FWAs in the future. Indeed, a key concern for those in the focus groups was that

having experienced these forms of work arrangement, a return to a BAU environment will

lead to less informal workplace flexibility as traditional work norms are reinforced. With

regard to WFH arrangements, those who participated in the focus group were unanimous in

their interest in accessing a partial or hybrid work option in a BAU environment – where there

was regular scheduling of time spent in and out of the office. In light of the survey findings,

such a work arrangement could alleviate some of the more negative outcomes of WFH

including a loss of professional and social isolation, data security, along with reduced

information sharing and team interaction. While some staff noted that they currently have no

interest in working full time from home, the ‘choice’ to avail of such an arrangement on a

partial or part time basis remains important.

Finally, the interconnection between ‘FWAs in a BAU environment’ and ‘FWAs as BCTs’ is

perhaps worth noting. The incorporation of flexible work arrangements such as working from

home and remote working in a BAU environment can provide organisations with the

knowledge, systems, supporting structures and workforce experience to adapt quickly in a

post-disaster situation. Inland Revenue and its staff have significant knowledge and

experience of FWAs and WFH arrangements in a post-disaster environment – building on that

experience in BAU environments has obvious advantages for the organisation.


References

Alvaro, M., de Assis, G. and Fernando, L. (2011) ‘Lessons learned from September 11th: Telework as an Organizational Resource to the Business Continuity Planning’, The Japanese Journal of Telework, 9(1): 46-51.

Bosua, R., Gloet, M., Kurnia, S., Mendoza, A. and Yong, J. (2012) Telework, Productivity and Wellbeing, Institute for a Broadband-Enabled Society, University of Melbourne.

Felstead, A. and Jewson, N. (2000) In Work at Home: Towards an Understanding of Homeworking, Routledge, London.

ITAC (2005) Exploring Telework as a Business Continuity Strategy: A Guide to Getting Started. Scottsdale, AZ: ITAC, The Association for Advancing Work from Anywhere.

Stevenson, J., Vargo, J., Seville, E., Kachali, H., McNaughton, A. and Powell, F. (2011) The Recovery of Canterbury’s Organisations: A Comparative Analysis of the 4 September 2010, 22 February and 13 June 2011 Earthquakes, Resilient Organisations Research Report 2011/04, Canterbury.

Taskin, L. and Edwards, P.K. (2007) ‘The possibilities and limitations of Telework in a bureaucratic environment: Lessons from the Public Sector’, New Technology, Work & Employment, 22(3): 195-207.

Tietze, S. and Musson, G. (2003) ‘The Time and Temporalities of Home-based Telework’, Personnel Review, 32(4): 438-455.

Treasury (2011) Public Sector Performance: The New Zealand Experience, Speech presented on the 10th of March 2011 by Mr. Fergus Welsh, Chief Financial Officer to the CPA Australian Conference, Melbourne.

WorldatWork (2011) Telework 2011: A WorldatWork Special Report, The Dieringer Research

Group and WorldatWork. http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=53034

http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=53034


Appendix A: Structure of the Christchurch Rebuild Programme Team

Phase I: The Response phase (Feb-July 2011)

CRT structure - Feb 2011

Phase II: The Recovery phase (July- Dec 2011)

CRT structure - 29 July 2011

Phase III: The Re-invention phase (Dec 2011-)

Christchurch Rebuild team structure – 16 Nov 2011


Christchurch Rebuild team structure – Current (Feb 2013)


Appendix B: The Christchurch Earthquake Rebuild Programme Timeline

February 22nd 2011

Earthquake hits resulting in the immediate closure of IR’s sole premises at 224 Cashel Street and displacement of 828 workers.

February 23rd-24th 2011

Establishment of the Christchurch Recovery Team (CRT):

Christchurch Recovery Team established and accommodated at Wigram Air force museum.

A three phase recovery strategy developed: Phase I Response Phase II Recovery Phase III Re-invention

Initial structure teams established with the following function leads:

staff welfare,

communications,

business continuity,

building recovery,

government/inter-agency relationships.

End of February 2011

Phase I: Response commences (Feb-July)

Primary objectives for each team o Focus on staff welfare o Source temporary lease arrangements

Access laptops from other sites Team leaders or ‘people leaders’ are briefed and assigned teams TLs develop person circumstance profile for each staff member to assess

living circumstances and suitability for return to work Staff paid for full contracted hours irrespective of hours worked –

employment security.

Mid March 2011 Staff assigned out Range of working arrangements introduced Formal policy on Return to Work introduced 14th March Formal process of assigning work and hours commences Formal agreement for staff covering period 17th March to 30th June

May 2011 788 staff are redeployed across a number of temporary sites HR policy covering period 6th May to 30th June Provision to have all working their contracted hours by 30th June Combination of rostered hours / WFH to top up hours By May normal leave policies apply

June 13th 2011 6.3 earthquake results in the displacement of staff from Winston Avenue


July 2011

Phase II: Recovery commences (July -Dec) CRT - 5 streams and functional teams:

Facilities management (FM)

People relationships and communication (PRC)

Business continuity Inland Revenue (BCIR)

Business continuity Community (BCC)

Phase 3 planning

Focus on the sourcing of suitable temporary accommodation Management of staff anxiety Return to full work capacity Planning for Re-invention phase

November 2011

Staff fully redeployed to temporary IR accommodation or seconded to

other government agencies Reporting lines back to BAU

2012 onwards

Phase III Re-invention Decision to permanently close IR’s Cashel St premises announced 19 April

Retrieval of files, equipment and personal items from Cashel Street CRT transitioned – Christchurch Rebuild Programme team Focus on staff wellbeing, resilience and emotional sustainability, Working with CERA wellbeing on cross Govt agency network group -

PORT Reduction of temporary IR sites Official opening of Moorhouse Ave site - 6 December

2013

Official opening of Russley Road site - 24 January Official opening of IR front of house in the NZ Govt site in Durham Street Planned opening of Mid City site - May Better Public Services and Cross Govt initiatives PMCoE - Initiative to house number of Govt departments together in

the CBD


To cite this report:

Donnelly, N. & Proctor-Thomson, S.B. (2013). Working from Home: Lessons from the Christchurch

Experience. Wellington: Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Wellington. ISBN: 978-0-

908651-08-5.

Working from Home: Lessons from the Christchurch … · Public Service Association, Te Pūkenga...

Documents

Transcript of Working from Home: Lessons from the Christchurch … · Public Service Association, Te Pūkenga...